Are our wings over-engineered?

[J D 8]

Both the Fokker DR.I and Nieuport 28 both suffered a failure known as Wing Stripping.

When at high wing loads at high angles of attack [ loading is mostly highest on the top wing of biplane/triplanes ] aerodynamic forces caused a failure at the wing leading edge resulting in the covering being torn off. The spars of these aircraft did not fail and with the N 28 as it had ailerons on the bottom wing some pilots managed to retain control and land..

Both these aircraft were unusual for the time in having ply covered leading edge's. Nearly all other types used riblets to maintain the wing profile.

The DR.I did also suffer some design/production quality issues but not with the spar. The problem was the way the covering was attached to the ply leading edge and how the ply was fixed to the frame. Types with ribs/riblets had their fabric stitched on and this would limit any damage by load failure or battle damage [ ballooning it was called ] to just that rib bay.

This was not the case with the DR.I or N28 where failure " Wing Stripping " would result in the damage spreading over much of the wing.

[PatMc]

Sorry Plummet, I have no knowledge of JE Gordon or his books, it was your "(I think it was)" that made me think you had in mind the Albatros wing shedding caused by the spar position on the lower wing.
Funny that JD8 mentioned the Nieuport 28, the Albatros DIII & DV copied the spar structure layout from earlier Nieuport sequi-planes which also suffered the same problems. The spar of the bottom wing was positioned too far rearward causing the wing to be prone to distortion under high G forces that shouldn't normally have caused any problem.

Re my comment on Fokker's poor QC, poor workmanship & penny pinching, I think they are fairly well documented regarding several of his designs though apparently disputed as to the cause of the wing failures of D8's. Perhaps his reputation had simply caught up with him.